from Crikey .....

Rupert Murdoch has had a lot to say lately about the internet, and how a modern media mogul might milk it for corporate gain.

Paywalls appear to be a key to the Sun King's strategic thinking, restrictions around content to squeeze micro-payments from an eager readership. We already have one right here at News Corp, Murdoch enthuses.

"We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story -- but if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form."

We hate to break this to you Rupert, but the WSJ doesn't so much have a paywall as a permeable membrane. You can read anything you like on the site, in full and for free.

This is how you do it:

• Go tothe site's home page (here it is).
• Look for a story with one of the little key symbols next to the headlines. This denotes paywalled content.
• Click on that headline. When the locked story page opens, cut and paste the headline of the story, in full, into the search bar of Google. Google will pull thatstory up to the top of itssearch page.
• Click on that headline link and there, hey presto, is the story in full for free.

We point this out just by way of showing what a tricky thing these internets can be. Sorry Rupe, but there it is.

and if that's not enough ....

Dear Rupert, this is how the internet works. Google it.

Stilgherrian writes:

Dear Mr Murdoch,

While you're undoubtedly rich and clever and influential, your plan to remove your news from Google's index is just daft. If you want us to read your stories, let alone pay for them, we have to be able to find them first.

Last year more Americans got their news from the internet than newspapers. From the graph in that story, it looks like it'll only be a few years before the internet surpasses television as well.

On the internet people -- especially young people -- don't get their news in a monolith from one or two sources like a daily newspaper or nightly TV bulletin.

"The media revolution affects so many aspects of [young people's] lives and news just happens to be one of them," says Betsy Frank, Executive VP in charge of research at Viacom.

"They have no loyalty to media institutions like their parents did," she says, and this won't change as they get older."

People now gather their news from all over the place in little pieces -- using the "aggregators" you despise, search engines and, increasingly, personal recommendations from "friends" on networks like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter.

This is assuming they even want news to begin with.

As David Mindich, author of Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don't Follow the News, points out, "They are still just as thoughtful, intelligent -- and I would argue -- literate as ever before. What has changed is that young people no longer see a need to keep up with the news."

Now this morning, Mr Murdoch, I wanted to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting your comments. Rather than watch your full 37-minute interview with Sky News Australia -- deadlines, deadlines! -- I wanted a news report.

I went to Google News and typed "murdoch block google". The first result was this story at the UK's Telegraph.

I went to Microsoft's Bing and typed the same thing. Their top link was this story at the Guardian.

(I also searched the news at Yahoo!7 and their one and only result was a Crikey story from a month ago. Fail.)

I clicked through and read their stories -- you don't see full stories in search engines, Mr Murdoch, you have to click through. I saw their adverts. They got traffic.

Do you own the Telegraph or the Guardian, Mr Murdoch?

Oh dear.

There are many reasons the Telegraph and Guardian stories may have ranked higher in Google's search results, but the key one is how many people linked to those stories. Google treats a link as a recommendation. A vote for relevance.

People don't link to stories behind a paywall, so they're inevitably ranked lower.

If you ask Google not to index your stories, they won't be discovered at all.

As Google's spokesman told the Telegraph, "Google News and web search are a tremendous source of promotion for news organisations, sending them about 100,000 clicks every minute."

"Publishers put their content on the web because they want it to be found, so very few choose not to include their material in Google News and web search. But if they tell us not to include it, we don't."

I'm worried on behalf of your shareholders, Mr Murdoch.

If you don't know how the internet works as a news medium -- and if you don't even know how your own news sites work, as the Guardian story pointed out when you stuffed up the description of the WSJ.com paywall -- they're screwed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDT_4Nor7Hw&feature=youtube_gdata

meanwhile .....

Fairfax to rule out locking up news websites?

Glenn Dyer writes:

Listen out for the sound of the Murdoch minions reacting to the cold water that Fairfax Media CEO Brian McCarthy has just poured on the idea of paid content news websites.

In his speech to the Fairfax AGM in Sydney this morning,  McCarthy hinted that he wasn't a fan, and I think you'd have to take it as a given that the board doesn't share the Rupster's enthusiasm for screwing news site visitors for a bit of extra dough.

To make his grandiose plans work, Murdoch and News Corp need the likes of Fairfax and the ABC in Australia and the BBC in the UK to fall into line and charge for content on their general news websites, or he has to find political ways to neuter the public broadcasters.

He has started low-key talks with the Telegraph group in London to try to con them into his charge-for-content camp. The Telegraph's website is very popular in Britain.

But for News in Australia, Fairfax is the great obstacle with its more-visited fleet of sites.  McCarthy seemed to question the profitability of locking up the company's "general news websites" (such as smh.com.au).

"In relation to charging for online content, a great deal has been said and written on this subject over the past six months or so. We are looking closely at this issue and at this stage we have not made a final decision as to what course of action we may take," said McCarthy. He continued:

Fairfax reaches more consumers than it ever has, and produces content that is highly valuable to these consumers.

Fairfax already charges for content online in a number of areas and is constantly reviewing further opportunities to charge for content in the digital space where it makes economic and strategic sense to do so.

It is, however, important that we maintain a high level of audience reach via our news sites such as smh.com.au and theage.com.au, plus many other sites.

Charging users of these general news sites for access may not be profitable for us in the long term.

Shareholders were told that the company is still doing it tough, although there had been an improvement in trading conditions.

For the first four months of this half, underlying EBITDA from continuing businesses has been below the same period last year by approximately 15%. By way of comparison, EBITDA for the last four months of the 2009 year was below the same period last year by approximately 40% ... and I have already outlined the exceptional economic conditions we encountered at that time.

In the second half of 2010, we anticipate improved business conditions to deliver modest earnings growth compared with the same period last year.

I'm reminded of a story from Japanese folklore about a little boy called Rupert ....

Rupert was a beloved & spoilt son, whose father often brought him gifts when he returned home each day.

One day, Rupert's father gave him a new little red ball.

Rupert was so excited with his new toy, he couldn't wait to show his friends in the neighbourhood & he rushed outside, calling for them to all come & play with him.

After all the boys had gathered in the street, Rupert showed them his new ball & invited them to play with him. He explained that the 'rules' of his game required that they all form a circle around him & he would pass the ball to each of them in turn, with each passing the ball back to him. So they began to play ....

After a little while, one of the boys suggested to Rupert that someone-else should take his place in the centre of the circle, so that they might have more turns in playing with the ball.

Rupert rejected this suggestion, claiming that as he owned the little red ball, he should get to make the rules of the game.

After hearing Rupert's claim, the other boys decided to leave him & play a different game.

Rupert was left alone with his little red ball & eventually realized that it was of no use to him, as he had no-one with whom to play.